Road Cycling - Dura Ace vs. Ultegra

I'm looking at getting my first road bike, and would like input re: the "real difference" between Dural Ace and Ultegra components. I'm not a racer, but I do ride some pretty steep hills, and look to do the odd century.

My current experience is mountain biking on a Trek Fuel 80.

Thanks

Dura Ace is shimano's highest end stuff (i.e. race gear) while ultegra is a bit heavier (in most components) and will not cost as much. Unless you are going to do time trials with your bike, I would save a bit of money and go with ultegra, the extra weight will be very minimal and probably will not reduce performance. Either choice is a good groupo.

Since you are not a racer, I think I'd save the cash and go with Ultegra. And for those steep hills I'd consider a 12-27 cassette and a triple crank set. (You might get a few comments about the triple being not needed. For those in good shape with strong legs, heart and lungs, maybe it isn't. You have to decide. It's your money, and you'll be doing the riding.)

There's nothing wrong with 105, either. I'd never buy Dura Ace for a bike that was not for competition, and that I was planning to keep a long time and put a lot of miles on. Dura Ace is optimized for performance, not durability.

If I were building an $1500-2000 road bike from scratch, I'd go with Ultegra.

RichC

Yeah. I'd go with Ultegra. The weight won't make much of a difference and the components will last longer than Dura-Ace. With money saved you could upgade your wheels or something.

I went with the Dura Ace triple. The components are lighter, the STI is smoother and more precise. One of the little known facts about the front rings on the DA is the number of teeth match what most people are used to on a road set up. The DA triple has 52-39-30, whereas the Ultegra triple has 52-42-30. The Ultegra (depending on the rider) takes a little getting used to when first using the rig and people find themselves stirring around the STI to find the old sweet spots. I needed my old set up for the riding I normally do and the 30 for big hills. The Ultegra STI levers have a reputation for developing rattles. That was another reason that I chose DA. My old Ultegras would set up a real buzz on some of the local roads.
I made these choices after being told what was right for me. I have been extremely pleased with the set up. Choose what is right for you. Not what someone says is right for you.

Thank you all for your quick input. It's very helpful!

Originally posted by ljbike
I'd consider a 12-27 cassette and a triple crank set. (You might get a few comments about the triple being not needed. For those in good shape with strong legs, heart and lungs, maybe it isn't. You have to decide. It's your money, and you'll be doing the riding.)

I wouldn't discount the triple front but maybe a 12-27 is a little much with a triple. I have a double (and sometimes I admit that sometimes I do wish I had a granny) with a 12-27 but I think I'd do at most a 12-25 if I had a 30 up front... maybe even a 12-23. My legs probably aren't good enough for a 21 lowest cog... even with a 30 although maybe I should consult a development chart before saying that though. Then again, I don't know your type of riding or the terrain you live near. My suggestion would be to ask your LBS if you can take a few bikes out with differing setups out and try riding them around the area to see if you're really hurting for a specific gear combination.

The spec sheets say DA is lighter than Ultegra, but you have to read closely to find the differences. Rear derailleurs weigh the same, and the fronts are within a couple of grams. Crank/BB combo is 150 grams, or so, and shifters are another 50g. The weight difference between full gruppos might be 3/4 lb., including hubs, brakes, etc.

If you're counting grams, DA is the winner, but Ultegra wins if you're counting dollars. Don't discount 105 either, as it performs very well.

I think the 12x27 would be overkill with a triple. My buddies Tiagra triple came with a 13x25 out back and it is plenty low for the hills around home (up to 15%).

I ride them both, the STI shifters on the DA are slightly more precise, but other then that there is no real world difference until you get 20,000 miles on the drive train, with a new chain every 3000 miles. Your wallet will know the difference though.

I have Dura Ace on one bike (racing bike) and Ultegra on two others (primary training bike & rain bike). To be quite honest the only real difference I can give you is the effect it has on my ego. The performance is the pretty much the same. I give a *slight* edge in performance to the DA sti shifters. They seem a little more positive and robust than my ultegras. Both work very well.

Well Dura Ace is lighter than Ultegra or 105. But it is quite a bit more expensive. And it is not that much lighter. It makes sense for procyclists to use Dura Ace especially on mountain stages where weight has a very direct impact on performance. The extra lb of a cheaper groupo will cost a .5% performance loss.

But for the recreational cyclist riding flat or rolling terrain, they will never notice the difference. I have been told by various sources that Ultegra and 105 are just as durable as Dura Ace. I have 30,000+ miles on a 105 groupo and the rear derailler is getting a bit sloppy but that isn't too bad.

Unless you want to impress your cycling buddies or yourself, go with the less expensive groupo.

Tie - I would look at bikes with the 105 group. This is a great group for the money and the frames they are attached to are usually worthy of moving up the component food chain if that be your pleasure. They'll last as long as you need in most instances and will save the initial out lay of dough without sacrificing too much at all in performance.

yeah... even ultegra is a bit much for a first road bike. i'm lookin for 105-level componentry on my first roadie

Here's the bottom line....
Dura-Ace will last longer, shift better and brake better.
Bottom line.

Originally posted by knifun
Here's the bottom line....
Dura-Ace will last longer, shift better and brake better.
Bottom line.

You forgot the other bottom line.... the one on the receipt. Dura-Ace will also take longer to pay off of your credit card. |8^)

how does the campi chorus compare to the ultgra?

ill take the campy any day

how does the campi chorus compare to the ultgra?

I'd say it's quite a few steps ahead of Ultegra. When you're in this range I guess you would be looking at mostly weight (Chorus is a few grams lighter than Dura-Ace, many lighter than Ultegra - almost a pound). Maybe look at things like longevity, I think Chorus is a little better built in terms of lasting the long haul.

Weights listed below,
Record - 2909g - 6.41lbs
Chorus - 3070g - 6.77lbs
Centaur - 3283g - 7.24lbs

Dura Ace - 3081.5g - 6.79lbs
Ultegra - 3385g - 7.46lbs
This is according to Cbike, included are the crankset, bottom bracket, front hub, rear hub, front derailleur (braze on), rear derailleur, cassette (12/25S, 11/23C), chain, brake/shift levers, brake calipers, pedals.

Personally I'd put Centaur much closer to Ultegra than Chorus.

Andrew

Dear Khuon,
If you re-read TieaflyandBike's original question, he left it open ended and asked "what the real difference was in the Ultegra and DuraAce components." Notice the key word - components. He did not specify that pricing mattered. The difference in the "compnents" is that the DuraAce will shift better, brake better and last longer. Yes, the DuraAce is more expensive, but this was not the original question.

I disagree with those recommending 105. Ultegra and Dura Ace put 105 to shame, and I have found 105 uncomfortable to ride. Ultegra is the best for the money. Ride 105 for a year and you will be ready to upgrade, and working on 105 can be a trick.

I have two friends that had to replace their Dura Ace bottom brackets after a little more than a year's riding. Is that common?

Thank you all for your comments. Just to close out my end of things, let me tell you that - partially because of your comments, I've gone with Ultegra and purchased the Trek 5200 rather than the 5300 (only difference being Ultegra vs. Dura Ace - oh, and a bit of $$).

The gist of what I got from folks is that Dura Ace is either (1) barely noticeably better than Ultegra or (2) not noticeably different until I notch 30,000 mi or so, at which point I may - or may not - notice a difference. Also, Ultegra will run .75 lbs more. Were I one who sported 2% body fat, then I may consider spending $1000 more for lighter weight componants. As is, I'll plan on losing .75 lbs, which will spare me both food as well as bicycle costs, and then I'll worry about things at 30,000 mi.

Thanks again for the input from all. You've helped me and taught me a lot.

L. Leer

YEAH! The Trek 5200 kicks @$$!!!:D :D :D :D

Don't buy either, buy Campy Chorus. Its better than Shimano. I just switch to Ultegra and hate it.

http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=14055&highlight=ultegra+dura-ace

DuraAce will shift better, brake better and last longer.


I don't agree that Dura-Ace will last longer than Ultegra. An Ultegra cassette definitely lasts longer than a Dura-Ace, at the expense of extra weight. I have both, and I have to replace my Dura-Ace cassette about every 20,000 miles. No so with the Ultegra.

I disagree with those recommending 105. Ultegra and Dura Ace put 105 to shame, and I have found 105 uncomfortable to ride. Ultegra is the best for the money. Ride 105 for a year and you will be ready to upgrade, and working on 105 can be a trick.

I have two friends that had to replace their Dura Ace bottom brackets after a little more than a year's riding. Is that common?


Uncommon. I have about 10,000 miles on my Scott CR1 and it has a dura-ace bottom bracket. In fact, I've had to change the chain a couple times and get new cables. Thats about it. DA is bullett proof!

Why are we resurrecting a thread from 2002. Stop this nonsense.